cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Kinsella <...@stratosec.co>
Subject Re: 4.4 Feature Freeze
Date Fri, 28 Feb 2014 21:08:15 GMT
I’m completely in-line with Hugo on this. Was actually going to make similar comments about
the…solidness of the arguments to move.

On Feb 28, 2014, at 6:09 AM, Hugo Trippaers <hugo@trippaers.nl<mailto:hugo@trippaers.nl>>
wrote:

i’m all for being flexible, but i find a lot of the arguments used here debatable.

“It causes developers to rush their development to meet the deadline." This will happen
anyway, every time we’ve extended the deadline we got new features coming in at the last
minute. Actually i’m under the impression that when we move the deadline people will actually
try to get more features in instead of working on stabilizing existing features.

“We can’t deliver features on the roadmap.” There is validity to this point, but on
the other hand we already know the entire release schedule way ahead, this feature freeze
date should not come as a surprise. But as i mentioned in an earlier mail, lets have this
discussion. Post which features might not make it into the release so we can have a discussion
if we should slip the release date to get this feature in. I think we all now that there are
commercial parties working with this software to build releases and have customers demanding
features, but if we don’t discuss that on list it’s hard for us to take it into account.

“Feature freeze wasn’t called” True, i wasn’t even aware that this was a requirement.
We should add this to the procedure here https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Releases
so release managers know this is expected of them. It should not impact the dates as the dates
are already fixed by the release schedule (every 4 months)


I’m still -1 on extending the feature freeze. I would rather extend the test/stability phase
to we have some more time to fix issues before we get into the RC spinning.


This is the list of current features targeted for 4.4 according to our Jira. Which features
would be impacted if we don’t move the feature freeze?

ASF JIRA
Project: CloudStack
Type: New Feature
Fix Version: 4.4.0
Resolution: Unresolved
Sorted by: Updated descending
1–15 of 15 as at: 28/Feb/14 15:07
T Key Summary Assignee Reporter P Status Resolution Created Updated Due
<newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6181
Root resize
Unassigned Nux <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 27/Feb/14 27/Feb/14
<newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6161
distributed routing and network ACL with OVS plug-in
Murali Reddy Murali Reddy <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 24/Feb/14 24/Feb/14
<newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6092
Storage OverProvisioning as a Per Primary Basis
Saksham Srivastava Saksham Srivastava <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 13/Feb/14
20/Feb/14
<newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6144
HA for guest VMs running Hyper-V
Unassigned Rajesh Battala <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 20/Feb/14 20/Feb/14
<newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6143
Storage Live-Migration support for Hyper-V
Unassigned Rajesh Battala <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 20/Feb/14 20/Feb/14
<newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6142
Zone Wide Primary Store in Hyper-V
Unassigned Rajesh Battala <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 20/Feb/14 20/Feb/14
<newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6104
PVLAN support for CloudStack deployment over Nexus 1000v in VMware environment
Sateesh Chodapuneedi Sateesh Chodapuneedi <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved
14/Feb/14 15/Feb/14
<newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6109
Support of iSCSI as primary store in Hyper-V
Rajesh Battala Rajesh Battala <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 14/Feb/14
14/Feb/14
<newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6106
Support of VPC in HyperV
Rajesh Battala Rajesh Battala <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 14/Feb/14
14/Feb/14
<newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6090
Virtual Router Service Failure Alerting
Harikrishna Patnala Harikrishna Patnala <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved
13/Feb/14 13/Feb/14
<newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-6052
List VM enhancement to support querying with multiple VM IDs
Koushik Das Koushik Das <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 07/Feb/14 07/Feb/14
<newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-5569
enhance OVS plug-in to support region level VPC and guest networks that span zones
Murali Reddy Murali Reddy <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 19/Dec/13 19/Dec/13
<newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-5568
introduce notion of guest network that spans multiple zones
Murali Reddy Murali Reddy <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 19/Dec/13 19/Dec/13
<newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-5567
enable VPC at region level
Murali Reddy Murali Reddy <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 19/Dec/13 19/Dec/13
<newfeature.png> CLOUDSTACK-5398
Cloudstack network-element plugin to orchestrate Juniper's switches
Unassigned Pradeep H Krishnamurthy <major.png> <open.png> Open Unresolved 06/Dec/13
06/Dec/13



Cheers,

Hugo

On 28 feb. 2014, at 10:17, Prasanna Santhanam <tsp@apache.org<mailto:tsp@apache.org>>
wrote:

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 07:26:10AM +0000, Ram Ganesh wrote:
Yes. I can only agree with you on this.  When we come up with dates
we have to be cognizant about slips in prior releases (we had 6 RC
re-spins and counting....) which would have had impact which is the
case now.  We have to be bit flexible with our dates.


But you do agree that the re-spins uncovered bugs/issues that needed
to be fixed? Is it perhaps a mismatch in when the artifacts start
getting tested by the users+devs as opposed to when company-x might be
satisfied with their testing? More than 90% of the re-spins are
bugs/issues uncovered by users who needed RC candidates and weren't
testing artifacts on a daily basis (I could be wrong here). I don't
think someone with a large test engineering team would wait for the
RCs to get rolling. May be if we addressed that mismatch in timing we
could have smaller RC phases. Something like a soft-freeze and a
hard-freeze.

post soft-freeze : users+devs do a daily test (mostly manually for
features they care about)
post hard-freeze : everyone only looks at a daily automated test
report and if all looks good, we release?

--
Prasanna.,

------------------------
Powered by BigRock.com<http://bigrock.com/>



Stratosec<http://stratosec.co/> - Compliance as a Service
o: 415.315.9385
@johnlkinsella<http://twitter.com/johnlkinsella>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message